Nominations solicited for the 2016 Molecular Ecology Prize

Fred Allendorf, recipient of the 2015 Molecular Ecology Prize and chair of the Molecular Ecology Prize Selection Committee, requests nominations for the 2016 Molecular Ecology Prize. See details below for how to nominate an accomplished scientist working in evolution, ecology, or a related field using the tools of population genetics and genomics.
I am soliciting nominations for the annual Molecular Ecology Prize.
The field of molecular ecology is a young and inherently interdisciplinary research area. As a consequence, research in molecular ecology is not currently represented by a single scientific society. Likewise, there is no body that actively promotes the discipline or recognizes its pioneers. To help fill this void, the editorial board of the journal Molecular Ecology created the Molecular Ecology Prize to recognize significant contributions to this area of research.
The prize will go to an outstanding scientist who has made significant contributions to Molecular Ecology. Presumably these contributions would mostly be scientific, but the door is open for other kinds of contributions that were crucial to the development of the field. Previous winners are: Godfrey Hewitt, John Avise, Pierre Taberlet, Harry Smith, Terry Burke, Josephine Pemberton, Deborah Charlesworth, Craig Moritz, Laurent Excoffier, Johanna Schmitt, and Fred Allendorf.
Please send your nominations with a short supporting statement (no more than 150 words) by 15 May 2016 directly to me (fred.allendorf@gmail.com).
Thanks on behalf of the Molecular Ecology Prize Selection Committee. We look forward to hearing from you.
Fred Allendorf
fred.allendorf@gmail.com

Posted in community, Molecular Ecology, the journal | Tagged | Leave a comment

The why's of sex

Sex isn’t quite what it seems – while superficially wasteful in an evolutionary sense (why inherit on only one half of your genes, when you can inherit all of them asexually, or why waste resources in mating when you don’t need a mate asexually?), theory and empirical studies have argued for the evolutionary advantages of sex in the context of favoring recombination, efficacy of natural selection in purging or fixing new mutations, and thus evolving faster (see my previous post that describes this).

The rate and molecular signatures of adaptation M J McDonald et al. Nature 1–4 (2016) doi:10.1038/nature17143

The rate and molecular signatures of adaptation
M J McDonald et al. Nature 1–4 (2016) doi:10.1038/nature17143


However, there has been little empirical evidence that points directly towards the adaptive advantages conferred by sex. McDonald et al. (2016) sought genomic evidence of what we’ve known for a good part of population genetics since the modern synthesis – does sex speed adaptation? Using experimental evolution strains of S. cerevisae across 12 asexual (mitotic, budding) and 6 sexual (meiotic, sporulation) populations for approximately 1000 generations. Fitness assays of evolved populations were performed against ancestral strains. Genomes of every 90th generation were sequenced across four sexual, and one asexual population.
Key findings from this study include (1) the striking significant increases in fitness of sexually evolving populations, compared to the asexual populations, (2) an average of 44 de novo mutations per population, with similar proportions of nonsynonymous, synonymous, and intergenic mutations between sexual and asexual populations, (3) but a significant difference in rates of fixation of de novo mutations – fewer mutations fix in sexual populations, indicating that sex improves the efficiency of selection, disallowing harmful mutations to fix, and (4) the potential ubiquity of epistasis wherein a de novo mutation mayhaps be beneficial in one genomic background, but deleterious in another.

Future studies are needed to fully understand the consequences of this interplay between sex and balancing selection, and to investigate how epistasis interacts with recombination to alter the dynamics of sequence evolution. By combining precise control of the sexual cycle with whole-population time-course sequencing, this experimental system offers the potential to understand how these factors affect the rate, molecular outcomes, and repeatability of adaptation.

Reference:
McDonald, Michael J., Daniel P. Rice, and Michael M. Desai. “Sex speeds adaptation by altering the dynamics of molecular evolution.” Nature 531.7593 (2016): 233-236. DOI: 10.1038/nature17143

Posted in adaptation, evolution, genomics, mutation, natural history, next generation sequencing, population genetics, selection, theory, yeast | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The 2016 Next-Generation Sequencing Field Guide Preview: Zombie Systems and New Hope

(Generated with Star Wars Crawl Creator)
(Generated with Star Wars Crawl Creator)

After a year of minimal activity, we finally have some significant changes in Next Gen Land. In the 2016 update of the NGS Field Guide, I will continue to give my overall interpretation about the various instruments, but with less snark. In the Overall Instrument Purchase Table (Table 0), I continue to use the Green, Yellow, and Red light analogies, and again, these are from the point of view of someone at a medium to large university or research facility focused on molecular ecology (not human or crop genomics). So, even though the Illumina HiSeq X’s are awesome instruments & an obvious Green Light for human genomics applications, and use by molecular ecologists who can get access to them [they are now authorized for ≥30x genome sequencing of non-humans (only ≥30x)]; HiSeq X’s are still simply not practical for purchase (≥$6M for minimum of 5) or ownership (≥$1M/month to feed ≥5) for molecular ecologists.

If you are in the market for a next generation DNA sequencer in early 2016, Illumina is still the easiest choice to make, but we do now have some reasonable alternatives and one can hope even more will be officially launched this coming year. In addition the purchase overview table, I am providing updates to purchase & maintenance costs table, the major advantages and disadvantages table, as well as an updated spreadsheet for the expendable supplies. Thus, readers can make direct apples-to-apples comparisons on purchasing these instruments and obtaining data from them. I am setting aside updates to the other tables for the time being, but hope/plan to get to them later this year, likely with some help. Now, let’s start with the Illumina instruments and go from there.

Continue reading
Posted in genomics, howto, methods, RNAseq, transcriptomics | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments

To find duplicated loci in vertebrate polyploids, try thinking small

Duplicant, replicant, whatever

Duplicant, replicant, whatever


Big sequencing efforts have gone a long way to help understand the complexities of polyploidy. However, the bioinformatic approaches to sorting and scoring alleles in next-gen data are generally designed for easy of use in diploid species.
Unlike a diploid species, where paralogous loci are often a problem that needs filtered out, these loci are partially what makes a polyploid so interesting. What is going on with all of those duplicated genes?
An undervalued aspect of identifying duplicated loci in polyploids is the phenomenon of where they end up on a chromosome. Re-diploidization, when a lineage that undergoes whole genome duplication reverts back to diploidy over time, can result in gene duplications being isolated at the distal ends of homeologs*. Importantly, these distal ends are known for their high concentration of  gene families valued for their adaptive potential.
From

Figure 1 from Limborg et al. (2016). Example of residual tetrasomic inheritance in an autopolyploid (A) and the resulting distribution of duplicated loci at distal ends of chromosomes (B)


If you are filtering out seemingly duplicate reads from a polyploid, you could be missing out on these isolated paralogs. What do you do?
Well, if your study system is a plant, you probably already stopped reading this. The reproductive habits of plants have allowed for the capture of double haploids and other backcrosses or inbred lines that serve as the basis for mapping plant genomes. Getting a haploid perspective for a plant lineage can be as easy as just grabbing a haploid part of the plant.
Those haploids are awfully helpful because they provide a baseline dosage that can be expected in a polyploid individual. Is there a vertebrate alternative? A new paper by Limborg et al. suggests creating gynogenetic haploids and diploids by either irradiating sperm/ova and then blocking cell division, which is a (relatively) straightforward approach that works especially well in taxa with external fertilization.
Filler

From Box 2 of Limborg et al. (2016)


The resulting gynogenetic haploids can provide clear evidence for duplications:

Haploids only contain a single allele at diploid loci, so the presence of two or more different alleles at a locus signal a duplication where alleles from both duplicates have been assembled into a single locus due to retained sequence similarity.

The resulting gynogenetic diploids can be used specifically for mapping purposes. Because they contain chromatids from meiosis II, recombination frequencies can estimate the distance from a gene to the centromere.
Together, these lines could be used to properly genotype polyploids that have undergone genome duplication events and further the ability to ask questions about their evolutionary history, adaptive potential, or ecological relationships with related diploids.
 
*The confusion of sorting out polyploid homeologs is probably what gave rise to the American Genetics Association workshop that spawned this paper, titled “Escape from Homelog Hell”, which is about the greatest thing ever.
 
Cited
Limborg, M. T., Seeb, L. W., & Seeb, J. E. (2016). Sorting duplicated loci disentangles complexities of polyploid genomes masked by genotyping by sequencing. Molecular EcologyDOI: 10.1111/mec.13601

Posted in genomics, methods, next generation sequencing, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Genomic Islands of Speciation… are real?

I really want genomic islands of speciation to be real. Those great studies that seemed so convincing over the last ~10 years have been squashed due to, among other things, the trickiness of low genetic diversity (stay with me, I’ll elaborate below). But conceptually, genomic islands just have* to be real. Luckily, a recent paper by Marques et al., has given me hope.
What’s a genomic island of speciation?
We can imagine two sympatric populations that are divergent due to local adaptation or reproductive isolation. However, many such populations (or species) still experience gene flow. Genomic islands of speciation (also known as genomic islands of divergence) are the parts of the genome that underlie this reproductive isolation or adaptation and are resistant to the homogenizing effects of gene flow. These regions are what make the populations distinct and they stand out in contrast to the rest of the genome, which should be homogenized due to gene flow. To me, this idea is appealing because it helps explain how rampant fine scale local adaptation persists in the face of gene flow and can lead to ecological speciation.
But do they actually exist?
Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The rise of the fruit flies – Can good science communication make or break a model system?

The answer is: probably not. It is probably more important that the organism thrives in a lab environment, reproduces and hybridizes with speed and ease, and has some additional “desirable” features: think visible mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila, constant cell numbers in the nematode C. elegans, haploid/diploid cell cycles in yeast, and a small genome. So if you are working on Irises or salamanders, you are likely out of luck – your pet organism will not become the next top model organism.
However, by my own estimation, many many many interesting organisms fit the above list, but have never reached model organism status. One explanation for this: pure luck. Somebody started working on an organism group, and subsequent workers continued working on the same organisms because they already knew something about it.
I argue that there may be another aspect: good science communication. This thought entered my mind after reading Coyne & Orr’s 1989 paper on patterns of speciation in Drosophila. C&O conduct a comparative study, relating time since divergence between species of Drosophila with levels of their reproductive isolation (e.g. successful interspecific matings). They combined existing molecular phylogenetic data with existing data on reproductive isolation between species. No new data – but molecular phylogenetics had only just made its entrance, and those data, even though not collected by C&O themselves, must have been pretty novel.


While Drosophila by then was unarguably already a model organism (C&O list 119 species pairs tested for signs of reproductive isolation during mating trials), they provide a new direction to the field. How did they achieve this? My three cents:
A) They combined a new method, molecular phylogenetics, with an established method, lab mating trials, thus getting both “old school” and “new school” scientists involved.
B) They tested theoretically sound hypotheses. This never hurts, and hypotheses relating to one of the big evolutionary challenges, speciation, is likely to draw attention.
C) They communicated hypotheses, methods and results clearly, making the paper accessible to a broad community. Moreover, they communicate in a manner that gets you excited about their research. I most certainly wanted to follow in their footsteps after reading their paper (and mind you, I am a dedicated marine biologists). This idea is by no means new, and the scientific community has become more aware and appreciative of good writing.
So then, to remedy my initial answer: model organisms need to have certain features, but the scientists working on them can do a lot to make the system more approachable, open it up for new questions, and transcend ideas across generations. Given that we are at the dawn of the age of genomics, Coyne & Orrs approach appears worth repeating, even when funding for new data is hard to get by.

Posted in evolution, phylogenetics, speciation | Leave a comment

RADseq vs. UCEs, round 3

Though reduced-representation genome sequencing (or high-throughput, or nextgen, or massively parallel sequencing, or…) has become standard practice for molecular ecology labs over the past few years, the relative merits of different library preparation methods remains an active area of research. Two of the most popular options use either restriction digests (e.g., ddRADseq, RADseq, GBS) or sequence capture with RNA probes (UCEs, exon-capture) to produce large numbers of loci that are then indexed for sequencing on Illumina platforms. These techniques target different regions of genome, vary in cost and reproducibility, and have their own vocal and partisan adherents.

Your garden-variety Piranga sp. -- the Western Tanager (Wikimedia Commons: Kati Fleming)

Your garden-variety Piranga sp. — the Western Tanager (Wikimedia Commons: Kati Fleming)


As a result, there’s been a new genre of paper in Systematic Biology and its ilk lately, ephemeral but representative of its time: the empirical phylogenetic study framed as a comparison of the efficacy of these methods. Smith et al (2013) kicked things off by exploring the performance of RADseq and UCEs at shallow timescales in a comparative phylogeographic study of Amazonian forest birds (both are decent!). Leaché et al (2015) followed suit with a study of deeper evolutionary relationships in Phyrnosomatid spiny lizards (RADseq is troublingly sensitive to bioninformatics parameters at the filtering stage!).
Continue reading

Posted in bioinformatics, evolution, genomics, methods, next generation sequencing, phylogenetics | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

The Truth

Spoiler Alert: I’ve taken plenty of care to try and not spill the beans on any plotlines, but you have been forewarned that there may be some aspects of the science that’s discussed on the show that I attempt to break down, which may or may not kill the suspense if you haven’t watched the new season already.
Disclaimer: I am in no way connected with or endorse any TV shows, their science/pseudoscience, its actors, or makers. This is post is meant to be a fan’s fun take on the show’s portrayal of modern science.

The ominous end of credit-sequence from The X Files. Image courtesy: Fox


Alright, now that all the liabilities are out of the way, I can’t tell you how big of a fan I am of the show, “The X Files”. I remember religiously traveling to my grandparents to watch episodes on their TV, the excitement uncontainable and rife amongst us faithful geeks in the classroom the following morning. The show enjoyed a glorious first few seasons, while fizzling out in the early 2000’s, and a resurrection early this year, with a running premise of human quests for answers to otherwise seemingly strange and untoward occurrences with oftentimes plain bat-shit-crazy-annoying persistence of a “believer”, FBI Special Agent Fox Mulder, and the ever skeptical rationale, often backed by the state of the art in genetics and medicine of his partner, FBI Special Agent Dana Scully. From alien abductions, mutant creatures (the stuff that nightmares are made of), medical anomalies and miracles, legends and folklore to international conspiracies, the show has done it all. And I, like a lot of you, have had a very love-hate relationship with the show. Setting aside some directorial flaws, terrible acting, and redundant storylines, I’ve found myself at odds with the show’s representation, and misrepresentation of science. For those of you that want to venture beyond my questions about its scientific legitimacy, I point you to a book by Anne Simon, one of the show’s scientific advisers.
The writers have caught on to the relatively recent advances in genomic sequencing technologies to bring up some interesting questions, which I figured I’d chit-chat about.
Continue reading

Posted in genomics, next generation sequencing, population genetics, TV shows | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Battle of the Text Editors

Whether you’re a coding master or a total technophobe, a good text editor is a must-have for the molecular ecology toolkit.
Text editors are great for managing code, formatting input files, or jotting notes. But with so many different text editors to choose from (depending on your platform, your budget, and your skill set), how do you know which is right for you?
Here is an overview of the most popular text editors I’ve encountered in molecular ecology.

TextWranglerText Wrangler Logo

My review: Best simple editor for OS X
TextWrangler is a great all-purpose text editor that seems really popular in the molecular ecology world. It’s 100% free (free as in free speech and free beer) and easy to use. One feature I often use (accidentally) is its auto-saving cache; you can open TextWrangler, take a quick note during a meeting, and your note will still be there even if you restart the program without saving.  If you like TextWrangler but are ready to graduate to something more advanced, you can also try BBEdit, which is made by the same developers.
Cons: Only available on OS X. May be too lightweight for programmers.

Notepad ++notepad++logo

My review: Best simple editor for Windows
Continue reading

Posted in bioinformatics, software | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

When times are good or bad, happy or sad, viral quasispecies like to stay together

Image courtsey of the Wikipedia article on coral reef fish, aka Nemo and the sea anemone

Image courtsey of the Wikipedia article on coral reef fish, aka Nemo and the sea anemone


We’ve known for a long time that symbioses are important across all walks of life. Clownfish and sea anemones are obligate symbionts, and bacteria found in legume root nodules help fix nitrogen. In a nice review published recently in Evolutionary Biology (Supp 2016), Jan Supp emphasizes the importance of understanding microbial symbiosis, and how these interactions are linked to development and evolution, in particular in relation to health and disease. Recently developed molecular methods have allowed for a better understanding of how microbes influence our health.
RNA viruses mutate fast and exist in highly diverse populations composed of what are referred to as “quasispecies”. The existence of these genetic variants is thought to promote population fitness. The findings from Xue et al., published today in eLife, present an elegant example of how the fitness of a H3N2 influenza population is enhanced when diverse variants (eg. multiple quasispecies) are present. This study demonstrates how looking at population dynamics (such as selection) are essential in understanding genomic evolution.
Residue 151 in the neuraminidase (NA) has made a name for itself, because it is located in the active site of the protein, which is involved in viral exit from host cells. Plenty o’ studies have found that mutations happen often when H3N2 is kept in cell culture, and the rate of mutation is higher in viruses passaged in cell culture vs original clinical isolates.
Ambiguous identities are common at NA site 151 after 2007.

Ambiguous identities are common at NA site 151 after 2007.


The authors show that starting in 2007, frequency of mutations at NA site 151 (with aspartic acid (D) or glycine (G) at site 151). jumped to 25% of the population, and as the figure demonstrates this is the case really just in the viruses maintained in cell cultures…but why? The mutation ends up in mixed populations, but the question still exists: are the mixed populations just a snapshot of a population that hasn’t quite reached fixation? Using two isogenic strains created with reverse genetics, the group looked at the two quasispecies and found that the mixed populations consistently had the best growth rates. Furthermore, when pure populations were cultured, mutations at residue 151 arose spontaneously.
Mixed populations grow to higher titers than either pure population alone.

Mixed populations grow to higher titers than either pure population alone.


Serial passage selects for a stable mix of the two variants.

Serial passage selects for a stable mix of the two variants.


Monitoring allele frequency after serial passages demonstrated that selection balances the proportion of the genotypes in the population. Finally, they also demonstrate that this cooperation isn’t just beneficial, but required when the hemagglutinin (HA) protein lacks receptor-binding activity. Cooperation is the key! Since it turns out that one variant is good at cell entry, and the other at cell exit, together they can infect cells more efficiently. There is no “I” in team…turns out there is a G and a D…..The work here suggests that cooperation is necessary to enhance the fitness of this virus. The authors stated:

“Our work emphasizes that genetic diversity in viral populations can be more than a transient state that facilitates adaptation: it can itself be a beneficial trait that is generated and maintained by selection.” – Xue et al., 2016

This is just the first step towards determining if these two variants cooperate in clinical infections. While results from previous studies might be biased since they are not so good at picking up low-frequency variants, future efforts promise to provide new insights into our developing view of how holobionts function and evolve.
References

Posted in adaptation, Coevolution, evolution | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment